of the alleged submission to the Duke of Albemarle, the governor, and was his family physician, and of course in a position to know all about it. The authority most often cited is a memoir by Bryan Edwards, entitled "Some account of the British Settlements on the Mosquito Shore, drawn up for the use of Government in 1773." The history of this memoir is a little curious. It purports to have been drawn up for the use of Government in 1773. It was printed anonymously, and was in 1776 "laid before Parliament" with the case of the Morning Star, to which I shall soon allude. The treaties of 1783 and 1786 having been concluded, the subject dropped. Twenty years afterwards, Mr. Edwards published his "History of the West Indies," in one of the foot-notes to which he states that the settlement in Mosquito having been surrendered to Spain by the treaty of 1786, it did not come within the plan of his work to treat of them, but referred all curious on this subject to this memorial. In 1819, in the fifth edition of his history (the first published after his death), this memorial was for the first time printed with the history, and under his name. It is now produced by the Foreign Office in the "correspondence," &c., on this subject, submitted to Parliament in 1848. That you may see how history has been perverted, I give you in parallel columns what Sir Hans Sloane really did say (copied from his printed history) and what Mr. Edwards represents him as saying:

SIR HANS SLOANE.

One King Jeremy came from the Mosquitos (an Indian People near the Provinces of Nicaragua, Honduras, and Costa Rica). He pretended to be a king there, and came from the others of his country, to beg of the Duke of Albemarle, governor of Jamaica, his Protection, and that he would send a Governor thither with a power to war on the Spaniards and Pirats. This he alleged to be due to his country from the Crown of England, who had in the reign of King Charles I submitted itself to him. The Duke of Albemarle did nothing in this matter, being afraid it might be a trick of some people to set up a Government for Bucaniers or Pirats. This King Jeremy, in coming to Town, asking many questions about the Island, and not receiving as he thought, a satisfactory account, he pulled off his European cloaths his friends had put on, and climb'd to the top of a tree to take a view of the country.

The memorial and substance of what he, and the people with him represented to the Duke of Albemarle, was, That in the reign of King Charles I of ever Blessed memory, the Earl of Warwick (by virtue of letters of reprisal granted by his said majesty for damages received from the Subjects of his Catholic majesty (did possess himself of several islands in the West Indies, particularly that of Providence (since called by the Spaniards St. Catalina) which is situated in 13 deg. 10 m. N. Lat., lying east from Cape Gratios de Dios (vulgarly known by the name of the Muskitos) between Thirty and Forty leagues; which put the said Earl upon trying all ways and means of future correspondence with the natives of the said Cape, and neigh

MR. EDWARDS.

The memorial and substance [says Sir Hans] of what he (the Mosquito King) and the people with him represented to the Duke of Albemarle was that in the reign of Charles I. the Earl of Warwick, by virtue of letters of reprisal, possessed himself of several islands in the West Indies, particularly that of Providence (since called by the Spaniards St. Catalina), which is situated 13° 10 m. N. lat., lying east from Cape Gracios a Dios (vnlgarly known by the name of the Mosquitos) between thirty and forty leagues, which put the said Earl upon all ways and means of future correspondence with the natives of the said cape and neighboring country: and in some little time he was so successful as to gain that point,

boring country, and in some little time was so successful as to gain that Point, and further prevailed with them so far, as to persuade them to send home the King's son, leaving one of his People as Hostage for him, which was Col. Morris, now living at New York. The Indian Prince going home with the said Earl, staid in England three years, in which time the Indian King died, and the said natives having in that time had intercourse of Friendship and Commerce with those of Providence were soon made sensible of the grandeur of his Majesty of Great Britain and how necessary his Protection was to them. Upon the return of the said Indian Prince, they persuaded him to resign up his authority and power over them, and (with them) unanimously declare themselves the subjects of his said Majesty of Great Britain, in which opinion they have ever since persisted, and do own no other Supreme command over them.

and prevailed with them so far as to persuade them to send home the King's son, leaving one of his people as a hostage for him, which was Col. Morris, now living in New York. The Indian prince, going home with the said Earl, staid in England three years, in which time the Indian king died, and the natives, having in that time intercourse and commerce with those of Providence, were soon made sensible of the grandeur of his Majesty of Great Britain, and how necessary his protection was to them. Upon the return of the said Indian Prince, they persuaded him to resign up his authority and power over them, and with them unanimously declare themselves the subjects of his said Majesty of Great Britain: in which opinion [continues Sir Hans] they have ever since persisted, and do own no other supreme command over them.

I am sure you will agree with me that a worse perversion of history than this can scarcely be found elsewhere. The original authority, when produced, states expressly that the Duke of Albemarle did nothing in the matter. Mr. Edwards suppresses the fact that Lord Warwick's expedition was hostile to Spain; and the opinion attributed to Sir Hans at the close of the extract is found to be not his, but the language of the memorial.

But I am able to go a step further in the history of this curious title, and show the equivalent which the Indian Esau received for his birthright. In a pamphlet first published in 1699 (eight years before the publication of Sir Hans Sloane), and afterwards republished in the sixth volume of Churchill's Voyages, containing an account of the Mosquito shore from a very intelligent person, evidently well acquainted from observation, is the following passage:

He [the King] says that his father, Oldman, King of the Mosquito men, was carried over to England soon after the conquest of Jamaica, and there received from his brother King a crown and commission, which the present Old Jeremy still keeps safely by him, which is but a cocked hat, and a ridiculous piece of writing that he should kindly use and relieve such struggling Englishmen as should choose to come that way with plantains, fish, and turtle, &c., &c.

The words that I have italicised in the latter part of this extract need no comment.

As to the second fact now alleged, I have only to say that the "convention" is published in the Mosquito correspondence submitted to Parliament in 1848; and so far from proving any sovereignty in the Indians, shows the contrary. It is neither treaty nor convention. It is a contract between King Jeremy on the one side, signed with "his mark," and Governor Lawes on the other, sealed with the PRIVATE seals of both parties, by which the King contracts to furnish fifty men to hunt negroes, and the governor to pay for them and give them "rum" enough for the voyage home; very similar to the contract made subsequently with the Spanish hunters of Cuba for the employment of bloodhounds for the same purpose. This is not the mode in which high contracting parties usually deal with each other. Any argument deduced from it is founded in an ignorance of the distinction between a sovereignty in the soil and a dominion over the persons of the savages composing the tribe.

As to the third fact, without stopping to dwell on its ex parte character, I have reason to think that the move was made in Jamaica at the instance, among others, of this Mr. Edwards, who drew up, to further it, the memorial above alluded to. To show how little the Government at home entered into it, in 1776 a vessel called the Morning Star, with certain Indians on board, who had been to England to aid in putting down the practice of selling the Indians into slavery, was seized by the Spanish Guarda Costas on its return to Mosquito. The owners brought the subject before Parliament, presenting with their petition Mr. Ed. wards' memorial. After a long debate, in which it was asserted that the seizure was justifiable, as the treaty had been violated, Parliament refused to entertain the subject.

I have now examined the only evidence adduced in support of the English claim to a protectorate, and, unless I deceive myself, it dwindles into insignificance. I now resume the historical thread.

The English settlers were lax in conforming to the provisions of the treaty of 1783, the territory allotted to them being found to be too small, and the eighteen months passed away without their removal. Spain began to complain of this infraction, and the result was the treaty of 1786, which, besides, enlarging the territory to be occupied by the English, and making various regulations about it, contains the following provisions:

I. His Britannic Majesty's subjects, and the other colonists who have hitherto enjoyed the protection of England, shall evacuate the country of the Mosquitos, &c. XI. * In this view His Britannic Majesty engages to give the most positive orders for the evacuation of the country above mentioned by all his subjects, of whatever denomination; but if, contrary to such declaration, there should still remain any persons so daring as to presume, by retiring into the interior of the country, to endeavor to obstruct the entire evacuation already agreed upon, His Britannic Majesty, so far from affording them the least succor, or even protection, will disavow them in the most solemn manner, as he will equally do those who may hereafter attempt to settle upon the territory belonging to the Spanish dominion.

XIV. His Catholic Majesty, prompted solely by motives of humanity, promises to the King of England that he will not exercise any act of severity against the Mosquitos inhabiting in part the countries which are to be evacuated by virtue of the present convention on account of the connections which may have subsisted between the said Indians and the English.

This was looked upon as an abandonment by England. It was so avowed in Parliament in a debate on a motion to impeach the ministry. Bryan Edward admits it in the foot-note cited above. The Mosquito settlers themselves considered it so, and put in a claim to Parliament for damages, which was allowed. Extracts from their statement of the grounds of their claim have found their way into the appendix to the Mosquito correspondence of 1848, under the title of "Extracts from McGregor's Commercial Tariffs, Part XVII."

Still later, in the Quarterly Review for October, 1822, Article VIII, in a review of a work on Mosquito Shore by one Captain Strangeway, is the following strong language. After saying that

The whole of the Mosquito Shore and Honduras and the town of Poyais have for many centuries belonged to Spain, and have been considered as constituent portions of the kingdom of Mexico, not one foot of which was ever held by the English, except occasionally during the war, by the buccaneers, or more recently by the logwood cutters;

and reviewing the treaties of 1783 and 1786, the writer says:

Nothing can more clearly establish the sole right of Spain to these territories than the treaty and convention above mentioned. We never had any business there. The simple fact is that the Mosquito Indians have always borne an inveterate dislike to the Spaniards. The Duke of Albemarle, when governor of Jamaica, fostered that dislike, and invested one of the Indians with a commission as chief of the Mosquitos, under the protection of England; a foolish ceremony, which was exercised long after

by his successor, just as we now make King Toms and King Jacks among the negroes of Western Africa; but if treaties are to be considered as at all binding, it is quite clear that we have not the right nor even the permission of residence on the Mosquito shore, and that we cut logwood and mahogany on the shores of Honduras Bay only by sufferance.

It is worthy of remark that in a reply to the Review, published in 1823, is the admission that "this territory belongs to Spain."

I have, &c.,

ABBOTT LAWRENCE.

DOCUMENT No. 38.

24.-Clayton-Bulwer treaty of April 19, 1850.

The United States of America and Her Britannic Majesty, being desirous of consolidating the relations of amity which so happily subsist between them, by setting forth and fixing in a convention their views and intentions with reference to any means of communication by shipcanal which may be constructed between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans by the way of the river San Juan de Nicaragua and either or both of the Lakes of Nicaragua or Managua, to any port or place on the Pacific Ocean, the President of the United States has conferred full powers on John M. Clayton, Secretary of State of the United States, and Her Britannic Majesty on the Right Honorable Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer, a member of Her Majesty's most honorable privy council, knight commander of the most honorable Order of the Bath, and envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Her Britannic Majesty to the United States, for the aforesaid purpose; and the said plenipotentiaries having exchanged their full powers, which were found to be in proper form, have agreed to the following articles:

ARTICLE I.

The Governments of the United States and Great Britain hereby declare that neither the one nor the other will ever obtain or maintain for itself any exclusive control over the said ship-canal; agreeing that neither will ever erect or maintain any fortifications commanding the same or in the vicinity thereof, or occupy, or fortify, or colonize, or assume, or exercise any dominion over Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America; nor will either make use of any protection which either affords or may afford, or any alliance which either has or may have to or with any state or people, for the purpose of erecting or maintaining any such fortifications, or of occupying, fortifying, or colonizing Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America, or of assuming or exercising dominion over the same; nor will the United States or Great Britain take advantage of any intimacy, or use any alliance, connection, or influence that either may possess with any state or government through whose territory the said canal may pass, for the purpose of acquiring or holding, directly or indirectly, for the citizens or subjects of the one, any rights or advantages in regard to commerce or navigation through the said canal which shall not be offered on the same terms to the citi zens or subjects of the other.

ARTICLE II.

Vessels of the United States or Great Britain traversing the said canal shall, in case of war between the contracting parties, be exempted from blockade, detention, or capture by either of the belligerents; and this provision shall extend to such a distance from the two ends of the said canal as may hereafter be found expedient to establish.

ARTICLE III.

In order to secure the construction of the said canal, the contracting parties engage that if any such canal shall be undertaken upon fair and equitable terms by any parties having the authority of the local government or governments through whose territory the same may pass, then the persons employed in making the said canal, and their property used, or to be used, for that object, shall be protected, from the commencement of the said canal to its completion, by the Governments of the United States and Great Britain, from unjust detention, confiscation, seizure, or any violence whatsoever.

ARTICLE IV.

The contracting parties will use whatever influence they respectively exercise with any state, states, or governments, possessing or claiming to possess any jurisdiction or right over the territory which the said canal shall traverse, or which shall be near the waters applicable thereto, in order to induce such states or governments to facilitate the construction of the said canal by every means in their power. And furthermore, the United States and Great Britain agree to use their good offices, wherever or however it may be most expedient, in order to procure the establishment of two free ports, one at each end of the said canal.

ARTICLE V.

The contracting parties further engage, that when the said canal shall have been completed, they will protect it from interruption, seizure, or unjust confiscation, and that they will guarantee the neutrality thereof, so that the said canal may forever be open and free, and the capital invested therein secure. Nevertheless, the Governments of the United States and Great Britain, in according their protection to the construc tion of the said canal, and guaranteeing its neutrality and security when completed, always understand that this protection and guarantee are granted conditionally, and may be withdrawn by both governments, or either government, if both governments, or either government, should deem that the persons or company undertaking or managing the same adopt or establish such regulations concerning the traffic thereupon as are contrary to the spirit and intention of this convention, either by making unfair discriminations in favor of the commerce of one of the contracting parties over the commerce of the other, or by imposing oppressive exactions or unreasonable tolls upon passengers, vessels, goods, wares, merchandise, or other articles. Neither party, however, shall withdraw the aforesaid protection and guarantee without first giving six months' notice to the other.

ARTICLE VI.

The contracting parties in this convention engage to invite every state with which both or either have friendly intercourse to enter into stipulations with them similar to those which they have entered into with each other, to the end that all other states may share in the honor and advantage of having contributed to a work of such general interest and importance